Arrow Bowen Pipeline Project - Appendix 4 - Cultural Heritage Report€¦ · Arrow Bowen Pipeline...

ABP Cultural Heritage Report for IAS – 20110107

1

CULTURAL HERITAGE REPORT FOR THE

ARROW BOWEN PIPELINE PROJECT INITIAL ADVISE STATEMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

Arrow Bowen Pipeline Pty Ltd (hereafter Arrow) is preparing an Initial Advise Statement (IAS) with

regard to the proposed construction of a gas transmission line to link gas fields in the Bowen Basin

with both Gladstone and other existing gas pipeline infrastructure such as the North Queensland Gas

Pipeline. This project is known as the Arrow Bowen Pipeline (ABP).

The location and elements of ABP are depicted in Figure 1. With a mainline and several laterals, the

ABP is approximately 620km in length. Commencing about 20km northwest of Glendon, Central

Queensland (the Newlands mining area), the mainline runs in a generally southeasterly direction.

Traversing southeast to Rockhampton (and running between Gracemere and Kabra) the ABP then runs

to an area 9km southeast of Mt Larcom. The main line is almost 490km in length and has been

designated as the ‘Mainline to Bruce Highway’ alignment. From this point, the route travels in a

generally easterly direction a final 16km terminating 6km to the northwest of Gladstone, Central

Queensland. This is known as the ‘Mainline from Bruce Highway’ alignment.

In the north around the Isaac River and west from the mainline, two connections with the NQGP

(referred to as the ‘Red Hill’ and ‘Goonyella’ laterals) are proposed. These are both around 20km

each in length. In the same area but to the northeast of the mainline a further connection (referred to

as the ‘Elphinstone Header’) extends an additional 52km to the north. Further to the south in the

Dysart area, are a further two proposed lateral pipelines (referred to as the ‘Saraji’ and ‘Dysart’

laterals) both extend westerly from the mainline some 13km and 12km respectively.

This report has been prepared by Central Queensland Cultural Heritage Management Pty Ltd

(CQCHM) and provides an overview of the cultural landscape of the proposed Project area and

preliminary constraints analysis based on the results of a variety of cultural heritage databases, lists

and register searches. It also sets forth the processes with respect to cultural heritage that will be

initiated in relation to the ABP.


2

Figure 1: General location and elements of the Arrow Bowen Pipeline Project.


3

2. ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE

2.1 Legislative Background and Management Strategy

A range of Commonwealth and State legislation exists to provide protection for Aboriginal cultural

heritage (both Aboriginal and non-Indigenous). These include: the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage

Protection Act 1984 (ATSIHP Act) (Commonwealth); and Queensland Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Act 2003 (ACH Act) (State). The information provided within this report has been prepared with

these in mind.

The dominant piece of legislation relating to Aboriginal cultural heritage in Queensland is the ACH

Act. This legislation has been in place since April, 2004. This is a significant matter when reviewing

engagement in the context of cultural heritage (see further below). At this point two particular

questions will be explored:

With whom is it necessary to engage?; and

By what means will ABP meet its legislative obligations in relation to cultural heritage?

The ACH Act defines those people with whom a proponent must engage. These people are referred to

as Aboriginal Parties. There is a descending hierarchy of persons who constitute Aboriginal Parties:

determined native title holders; currently registered claimants; claimants who were registered as of

April 2004 but whose claims have subsequently failed are also Aboriginal Parties until such time as

another claim is registered over the area, and noting that recent amendments establish the principle of

‘last man standing’ obviating any possibility of competing interests in this circumstance. If there are

no persons meeting these categories then any person claims to meet the criteria specified in s35(7) of

the ACH Act is an Aboriginal Party in the absence of any of the above categories.

Flowing on from this the ACH Act specifies that where a Cultural Heritage Management Plan

(CHMP) is required, the CHMP must be developed with those Aboriginal Parties who nominate for

the status of Endorsed Parties. This is done through a process of notification and response, the

conditions of which are stipulated in the ACH Act. Arrow will, as and when necessary, take the

necessary steps to notify and endorse the appropriate Aboriginal Parties for this purpose.

The ACH Act operates on the basis of a duty of care owed by development proponents and others to

Aboriginal cultural heritage. The duty of care can be met in a variety of ways. However, where an

EIS is a mandatory requirement for a license etc to operate a project or its necessary to comply with a

limited range of regulatory processes (see ss87-89) then it is essential to develop a Cultural Heritage

Management Plan (CHMP) under Part 7. The only caveat to this is that s86 allows the duty of care to


4

be met by settlement of a native title agreement of a specified form, being an ILUA, s31 agreement or

by use of the Native Title Protection Conditions.

Failure to comply with the duty of care can result in a charge of ‘Harm’ being made against a project

sponsor. Substantial fines can be levied where a party, individual or corporation, is found guilty of

harming Aboriginal cultural heritage. Stop orders and injunctions can be sought against the project

where there is a risk of harming Aboriginal cultural without complying with the duty of care. Arrow

is aware that it is required to comply with the cultural heritage duty of care. It is also aware that to do

so it must address this issue by one of the means specified in s23 of the ACH Act.

An EIS is required for this project. In these circumstances, there are two possible options available to

Arrow to meet the Duty of Care as set out in the ACH Act:

CHMP (mandatory)

ILUA that does not exclude cultural heritage

It will be necessary to attempt to settle ILUAs with each of the Aboriginal Parties along the route of

the mainline and laterals. Because of this, the option of using a native title agreement in place of a

CHMP will be available. It is intended to make use of this option. Arrow is aware, however, that

there are several hurdles to be overcome in making use of a native title agreement to manage cultural

heritage issues. These are: the Aboriginal Party may be averse to this option; the ILUA may not be

authorised; the ILUA may not be registered. In such circumstances, the duty of care would not be met

and thus Arrow would be non-compliant and in breach with the ACH Act. Consequently, Arrow will

first consult with the Aboriginal Party to determine interest in use of a native title agreement. If they

are not supportive of this a CHMP will be settled. Where there is support, Arrow will adopt a dual

approach that allows the development of both a CHMP and an ILUA that includes measures to

manage cultural heritage, with the measures specified in each being identical. In this, even if the

ILUA was not authorised or registered, Arrow would still be compliant with the ACH Act. Any

CHMP settled in these circumstances would include a clause noting that it is subsidiary to an ILUA

that includes cultural heritage measures and falls away once the ILUA is registered.

Arrow’s preferred option is to settle agreements either as CHMPs or as ILUAs that include provisions

for the management of Aboriginal cultural heritage. Arrow’s preferred model is to develop what can

be termed process agreements. As well as settling various general principles such as rights and

responsibilities of parties to the agreement, ownership of cultural heritage, mechanisms for dispute

resolution, and ‘boilerplate’ conditions, the agreements will stipulate the processes that will be

adopted at each stage of the exercise: initial cultural heritage assessment (commonly called a survey


5

but really needing to consider issues beyond a simple field inspection given the definition of cultural

heritage in the ACH Act), agreement of necessary management measures; implementation of

management measures prior to and during construction; post-construction requirements (if any).

It should be noted, however, that Arrow reserves to itself the full suite of options available to it under

Part 7 of the ACH Act. It may, therefore, choose to adopt one option over another for various reasons.

These will include compliance with general project timeframes, Arrow’s assessment of the likelihood

of securing a registered ILUA, and the general attitude of any Aboriginal Party to settling any

particular form of agreement in a timely fashion. Ultimately, this may see a CHMP being referred to a

court of suitable jurisdiction for approval of the CHMP without the agreement of the Endorsed Parties.

2.2 Aboriginal Parties

A range of searches of the register of native title claims maintained by the National Native Title

Tribunal (NNTT) have been made for the purposes of identifying Aboriginal Parties. Various forms

of data have been used including:

Digital data of the native title claim boundaries as of April 2004 (the date of implementation

of the ACH Act, and the relevant date for determining native title Aboriginal Parties), and, to

the extent available, at roughly six monthly intervals thereafter until and including the most

recent data set available at the time of preparing this report;

Hard copy extracts of each native title claim identified for the ABP area from the above

analysis;

Review of published native title claim maps on the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT)

web site and information provided by relevant claim officers in the NNTT to ensure that no

new claims have been excluded from the analysis.

This data has been used to determine which groups constitute the Aboriginal Parties for cultural

heritage issues associated with the proposed Project and how much of it lies within their claim area.

Figure 2 and Table 1 provides the outcomes of this analysis.

On the basis of criteria specified in ss34 and 25 of the ACHA, the following currently registered native

title claims (in alphabetic order) have standing as exclusive Aboriginal Parties for that portion of the

ABP that falls within their claim boundaries:

Barada Barna (QC08/11, QUD380/08)

Birri (QC98/12, QUD6244/98)

Darumbal People (QC97/21, QUD6131/98)


6

Darumbal #2 (QC99/1, QUD6001/99)

Jangga (QC98/10, QG6230/98)

Port Curtis Coral Coast (QC01/29, QUD6026/01)

Wiri People Core Country Claim (QC06/14, QUD372/06)

It should be noted that they hold exclusive status notwithstanding the presence of any unregistered

claim, irrespective of whether that claim was registered as of April 2004 or not. This extends over

approximately 86% of the main line and laterals.

The following also have the status of exclusive Aboriginal Parties for that portion of the ABP that lies

within their now unregistered claim but which does not overlap with any currently registered claim,

with approximately 3.5% of the route falls into this category of Aboriginal Party:

Jangga People (QC98/10, QUD6230/98) as previously registered but area withdrawn from

claim

Southern Barada & Kabalbara (QC00/4, Q60004/00)

Wiri #2 (QC98/11, QG6251/98)

Barada Barna Kabalbara &Yetimarla People (QC01/13, QUD6011/01)

The Jangga claim originally covered a slightly larger area in the past but was subsequently reduced in

size. A small section of a lateral line extends across the now unclaimed area. However, no other

claim has since been registered and that area was covered by the claim as of April 2004, making the

Jangga People the Aboriginal Party for that area.

Barada Barna Kabalbara and Yetimarla People claim overlaps with a section of the Wiri #2 claim.

The extracts for these claims indicate that the Barada Barna Kabalbara &Yetimarla People’s claim was

registered as of 12 January 2009 while the Wiri #2 claim was last registered as of 24 May 2007. In

accordance with the principle of ‘last man standing’ the Barada Barna Kabalbara &Yetimarla People

constitute the Aboriginal Party for that section of the mainline, being just less than 1km in length.

There is one section of the ABP where no native title claim is or ever has been registered. This

extends for a distance of 63.4kms or just over 10% of the proposed route.


7

Figure 2: Aboriginal Parties for the ABP


8

Table 1: Native Title Claim analysis

Native Title Claim Group and number

Status of Claim

Main Line(to Bruce Highway)

(km)

Main Line (from Bruce

Highway) (km)

Dysart Lateral

(km)

Elphinstone Header

(km)

Goonyella Lateral

(km)

Red Hill Lateral

(km)

Saraji Lateral

(km)

Total Pipeline/Group

(km)

Barada Barna People (QC08/11, QUD380/08)

Registered 173.94 0.00 11.77 51.99 20.37 2.24 13.40 273.71

Birri People (QC98/12, QUD6244/98) Registered 11.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.48 Darumbal People (QC97/21, QUD6131/98)

Registered 153.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 153.17

Darumbal People 2 (QC99/1, QUD6001/99)

Registered 12.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.04

Jangga People (QC98/10, QG6230/98) current claim

Registered 15.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.96

Port Curtis Coral Coast (QC01/29, QUD6026/01)

Registered 32.29 15.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.85

Wiri People Core Country Claim (QC06/14, QUD372/06)

Registered 16.84 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 18.84

533.05 Jangga People (QC98/10, QUD6230/98) as previously registered but area withdrawn from claim

Unregistered 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.20 0.00 5.20

Southern Barada & Kabalbara (QC00/4, Q60004/00)

Unregistered 6.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.80

Wiri #2 (QC98/11, QG6251/98) Unregistered 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.36 0.00 12.36 Barada Barna Kabalbara &Yetimarla People (QC01/13, QUD6011/01) Unregistered 0.99 0.99

20.15 Areas with no Native Title Claim registered since April 2004 63.09 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 63.39

63.39 Pipeline Route Total Lengths (km) 486.60 15.86 11.77 51.99 20.37 21.80 13.40 621.79


9

2.3 Preliminary Constraints Analysis

Searches of a series of databases, lists and registers maintained by both State and Commonwealth

agencies were undertaken with respect to known Aboriginal cultural heritage areas and objects that

may intersect with or be within defined proximity of the ABP. In affecting this, a 5,000m buffer was

placed around the proposed centreline alignment of the pipeline (including its laterals and mainline

options). It should be noted that the location of the project elements was refined after the search

responses were received and, for some of these, there was not time available to have the responsible

agency rerun these requests with the updated Project alignments. But this issue was obviated using

means explained below.

With the Commonwealth datasets being available on an Australia-wide basis and able to be rerun at

any stage, this situation specifically applies to the Indigenous Cultural Heritage Register and Database

(ICHR&D), Queensland Heritage Register (QHR) and Cultural Heritage Information Management

System (CHIMS) (these last two largely relating to places of historic heritage), which are all

administered by the Queensland Department of Environment & Resource Management (DERM).

It was ascertained that with the exception of around 30km of the Mainline to Bruce Highway

alignment in the Rockhampton-Bouldercombe area, a reduced 1,000m buffer (i.e. a 2km wide

corridor) of the revised Project alignment would be contained entirely within the original search

buffer. As a result this subset has been used as the basis of analyses undertaken of these datasets.

A new 5,000m buffer of the revised Project was able to be utilised in the case of the Commonwealth

lists and registers (see Section 4 below).

2.3.1 Indigenous Cultural Heritage Register and Database

The ICHR&D are the principle sources of Indigenous cultural heritage located across Queensland and

have been established under provisions of the ACH Act. The initial search returned some 699

individual entries for Aboriginal cultural heritage areas or objects that have previously been recorded

within the 5,000m buffer search area.

The results of this search, as provided by DERM, contains only minimal information regarding each of

the registered places: listing only the State identification number (ID), the place-type in a broad

classificatory sense, date recorded, locational information, and details regarding the Aboriginal Party

for each place. Where any other additional information has been available from other sources

regarding these places, this has been included within the tables and/or discussed within the text of this

section.


10

A closer examination of the search result data indicated that, particularly in recent years, multiple

records are present for the same place (based on the State ID field). In these cases they presumably

represent a series of points that describe in some measure the extent of the place. When this is taken

into account, the total number of places containing Aboriginal cultural heritage areas or objects

present on the ICHR&D within the buffer search area is reduced to 484. For the analyses of proximity

numbers of place-types provided below (Table 2) this reduced list has been utilised, while other

proximity analyses (based on the 1,000m buffer) have utilised the full search results database (i.e. 699

entries).

Table 2: Indigenous cultural heritage place types found within the original 5,000m search buffer of the ABP.

Place Type Total % Burial / Contact / Massacre 1 0.2

Contact / Camp 1 0.2 Cultural Place 1 0.2

Hearth 1 0.2 Landscape Feature 2 0.4

Quarry 4 0.8 Resource Place 1 0.2 Scarred Tree 58 12.0

Scarred Tree / Landscape Feature 1 0.2 Shell Midden 2 0.4

Stone Arrangement 1 0.2 Stone Artefact/s 385 79.5

Stone Artefact/s / Contact 1 0.2 Stone Artefact/s / Cultural Place 1 0.2

Stone Artefact/s / Excavation 7 1.4 Stone Artefact/s / Hearth 5 1.0

Stone Artefact/s / Hearth / Camp 2 0.4 Stone Artefact/s / Quarry 3 0.6

Stone Artefact/s / Scarred Tree 3 0.6 Stone Artefact/s/ Shell Midden 3 0.6

Stone Artefact/s / Well 1 0.2 Total 484

The distribution of these places is heavily skewed towards the portion of the ABP north from the

Moranbah area, which accounts for 600 (86%) of the currently entries on the ICHR&D. This area has

seen by far the greatest number and scale of development projects including open cut coal mining,

potential mining areas, extensive gas fields, and a variety of supporting infrastructure such as roads,

rail & powerlines. Intensive cultural heritage assessments have been undertaken in association with

these projects from which a great range of places have been identified.

A diverse range of Aboriginal place-types have been identified from previous cultural heritage

investigations undertaken in proximity to the ABP. This includes a number - including a burial,

hearths, a well, places associated with the contact period, a stone arrangement & shell middens - that

can be considered uncommon and/or rare. The general percentages that these comprise of the total


11

numbers, notably the predominance of places containing stone artefacts and/or relating to stone

artefact manufacture, is highly consistent with both region-wide and catchment trends (L’Oste-Brown

et. al. 1998:360-390).

However only eleven of these total 21 place-types have been identified as being present within 1,000m

of the pipeline centrelines as most recently proposed (noting the section that falls outside of the

original search buffer) (Table 3). Despite this, the range of place-types present speaks of a rich and

diverse cultural landscape with elements of the pre and post-contact periods.

With the exception of a contact / camp (ICHR&D ID: JH:J08) relating to Leichhardt’s February 1845

travels along the Isaac River (referred to as his ‘Thunderstorm Waterhole Camp’), and subsurface

stone artefacts found as a result of a test pitting program (HF:D90) the only other place-types located

within the 0-500m proximity buffers, consist of stone artefacts (66.7%) and scarred trees (27%).

With the inclusion of multiple records for single State IDs, 98 individual entries were found to be

located within the 1,000 buffer of the revised Project elements. Of these 6 were noted as being present

across more than one Project element (Table 4). Notable exceptions to this are the Dysart and Saraji

laterals (which contain no currently identified cultural heritage places), while the lake Elphinstone

header has only four places along its length. It is viewed that these results reflect more a lack of

comprehensive and systematic cultural heritage investigations within these areas rather than any true

statement regarding cultural heritage which may be present in these areas. Further review of the places

identified as being within the 0-100m proximity buffer observed that in fact all of these are located

within a 50m buffer of the pipeline centrelines as currently proposed (i.e. a 100m wide corridor), and

as such would seem to have a high likelihood of being impacted by the ABP if it were to proceed as

currently conceived. These consist of four areas which contain stone artefact/s and four scarred trees.

Further details of these places are provided in Table 5. It should be noted, however, that although

previously identified and recorded on the ICHR&D, this data source does not contain any information

regarding the current status of these places. With the majority of Aboriginal cultural heritage places

included on the ICHR&D originating from surveys undertaken as part of development-related

projects, it is unclear which, if any, of these places may still be extant.

The location of these places (which are labelled) along with all others identified from the results of the

ICHR&D search is depicted on Figure 3. Further details of those places identified as being within the

1,000m buffer of the revised pipeline alignments are included in Attachment 1.

ABP Bowen Pipeline Cultural Heritage Report for IAS – 20110107

12

Table 3: Indigenous cultural heritage place types by proximity classes to the revised pipeline centrelines from the ICHR&D search.

Place Type 0-100m % 100-250m % 250-500m % 500-1000m % Total % Contact / Camp - - 1 25 - - - - 1 1.3 Cultural Place - - - - - - 1 2.2 1 1.3

Landscape Feature - - - - - - 2 4.3 2 2.5 Quarry - - - - - - 1 2.2 1 1.3

Resource Place - - - - - - 1 2.2 1 1.3 Scarred Tree 4 50 - - 5 23.8 7 15.2 16 20.3

Scarred Tree / Landscape Feature - - - - - - 1 2.2 1 1.3 Stone Artefact/s 4 50 3 75 15 71.4 31 67.4 53 67.1

Stone Artefact/s / Excavation - - - - 1 4.8 - - 1 1.3 Stone Artefact/s / Hearth - - - - - - 1 2.2 1 1.3 Stone Artefact/s / Well - - - - - - 1 2.2 1 1.3

Total 8 4 21 46 79

Table 4: ICHR&D entries within the 0-1,000m proximity class for the various elements of the ABP.

Project Element Place Type Mainline

(to Bruce Hwy) Red Hill Lateral

Goonyella Lateral

Elphinstone Header

Saraji Lateral

Dysart Lateral

Mainline (from Bruce Hwy)

Total

Contact / Camp - - 1 - - - 1 Cultural Place 1 - - - - - 1

Landscape Feature 2 - - - - - 2 Quarry - - - 1 - - - 1

Resource Place 1 - - - - - 1 Scarred Tree 13* - 1 2* - - 1 17*

Scarred Tree / Landscape Feature 1 - - - - - 1 Stone Artefact/s 41* 10 22* - - 3 76*

Stone Artefact/s / Excavation 2 - - - - - 2 Stone Artefact/s / Hearth 1 - - - - - 1 Stone Artefact/s / Well 1 - - - - - 1

Total 63 10 24 3 0 0 4 104

(* has place/s associated with more than one element)


13

Table 5: Details of Indigenous cultural heritage places located within 50m of the pipeline centrelines

State ID Place-Type Project Element Notes Date Recorded GH:F93 Stone Artefact/s Red Hill Lateral - May 1996 GH:G88 Stone Artefact/s Mainline (to Bruce Highway) Single artefact July 2000

GH:G96 Scarred Tree Elphinstone Header &

Mainline (to Bruce Highway) - July 2000

GH:I91 Scarred Tree Mainline (to Bruce Highway) - January 2002 GH:J57 Stone Artefact/s Goonyella Lateral - October 2003 JF:C68 Scarred Tree Mainline (from Bruce Highway) February 1999 JF:C71 Stone Artefact/s Mainline (from Bruce Highway) - March 1998 JF:D51 Scarred Tree Mainline (to Bruce Highway) - November 2001


14

Figure 3: Results of the ICHR&D search identifying those places located within 1,000m of the pipeline centrelines.


15

2.3.2 Cultural Heritage Work in Arrow’s Gas Tenements at the Northern End of the ABP

Woora Consulting Pty Ltd has been undertaking cultural heritage investigations across Arrow’s gas

field tenements in the Moranbah area for a considerable period. In that time they have maintained a

database of capturing the results of that work which they have recently provided to Arrow. This has

information regarding 192 Aboriginal cultural heritage places and has also been reviewed here. It

should be noted that this dataset contains no datum and projection information and the results

presented here should be viewed in this light. Despite this however, a review of the data it contains

against a range of other base datasets (e.g. roads and waterways), along with comments internal to it,

have lead to the conclusion that it is most likely in MGA Zone 55, GDA96.

Consistent with the results of the ICHR&D presented above, the results of this work is

overwhelmingly dominated by places containing stone artefacts accounting for almost 80% of the total

(Table 6). The dominant form of these is as isolated stone artefact/s (generally less than 3 in number)

although a considerable number of what have been described as ‘low density background scatters’

have also been identified. Scarred trees being recorded in number is also highly consistent with the

results of previous analyses of Aboriginal cultural heritage data for the region generally, but also for

areas that are immediately proximal to the ABP (see 2.3.1 above), and particular.

Of particular note, however, is the identification of a large number of what are described as ‘Natural

Features’ within the Woora database. A more detailed review of these indicates that to date these have

consisted of examples or large and/or old trees. Several species are regularly identified in this way

and include poplar box, bloodwood, blackbutt, bendee and an example of bauhinia scrub.

Only one of these places was determined to be located within the 1km buffer (i.e. a 2km corridor) of

the ABP centrelines. As described, this place consisted of a single silcrete scraper. Although the grid

references for this placed it some 170m to the west of the Elphinstone Header element of the ABP

(Figure 4), it has also been noted that this has been relocated to another, currently unknown, location.

With this area containing a range of work done in close proximity to Teviot Brook (a tributary of the

Isaac River), several fragments of grindstone have been identified.

Extending out to the 1,000m – 5,000m proximity buffer, an additional eight cultural heritage places

have been identified. Again, these are dominated by areas containing low density stone artefact

scatters (in all cases containing less than eight artefacts at each). The only other place-type is a box

tree that has a single scar measuring 165cm long and 21cm wide (Figure 4; Attachment 1).


16

Table 6: Summary of Indigenous cultural heritage place types as identified from Woora’s work on Arrow tenements in the Moranbah area.

Place Type Total % Isolated Stone Artefact/s 78 40.6

Knapping Floor 2 1.0 Natural Feature/s 27 14.1

Scarred Tree 12 6.3 Stone Artefact Scatters (Low Density) 72 37.5

Stone Artefact Scatters (Medium Density) 1 0.5 Total 192


17

Figure 4: Woora Consulting Cultural Heritage Places and their relationship to elements of ABP.


18

2.3.3 Known Cultural Heritage Information Regarding the Section of the ABP outside the

Original 5,000m Search Area – the Kabra Realignment

Some information is available regarding the Aboriginal cultural heritage values of that portion of the

revised Project that fell outside of the original 5,000m buffer area submitted as part of the agency

searches (referred to in this section as the ‘Kabra realignment’) from a range of other data sources. It

is fortunate that a cultural heritage assessment and management program undertaken by the Darumbal

People for a powerline between Bouldercombe and Pandoin (to the north of Rockhampton) in 2008

included a considerable, although thin swathe, portion of this area. Additionally, three other cultural

heritage places from earlier work, all of which have been included on the ICHR&D, also fall within

this area.

In May 2008, the Darumbal People (Darumbal and CQCHM 2008) undertook a cultural heritage

assessment of a 100m corridor along the proposed Pandoin powerline. A total of 77 Aboriginal

cultural heritage places were identified along its 36km length. These included 76 areas containing

stone artefacts and a single scarred tree. Of these, 40 were identified and recorded along a 14km

stretch that traverses the central and southern portions of the Kabra realignment (Figure 5) and lie

within the 1km buffer of this section of the ABP. All of these were recorded as isolated stone

artefact/s and while 15 of these contained single artefacts at each, the remainder contained 13 or less at

each location. These were spread across areas up to 30m in diameter.

The nearest of these to the to the Kabra realignment is a cluster of three places (Pandoin 17-19; see

Attachment 1 for additional details) which, at their closest, are at least 250m south of the Mainline

centreline as currently proposed. Five unmodified stone artefacts were recorded.

During the conduct of management activities associated with this project, a series of small shovel pits

were also dug to test for the possible existence of sub-surface cultural heritage material. This test

pitting program was undertaken in an area that had a notable concentration of cultural heritage

material which included 11 (Pandoin 20-29 and 77) of the 40 places identified within the Kabra

realignment buffer. It is located some 500m to the northeast of the Mainline centreline (see Figure 5).

A series of seven 50 by 50cm test pits were excavated to between 160 and 300mm below the ground

surface. Two artefacts (unmodified chert flakes) were identified during this work, with both being

found immediately below the present ground surface.

While all of these cultural heritage places were mitigated and removed from the powerline project

area, the results of this work serves as a fair estimation of the types of cultural heritage places that

could be expected to be identified during cultural heritage assessments associated with the ABP.


19

Figure 5: Aboriginal cultural heritage places identified within the Kabra Realignment 1,000m buffer.


20

Three other cultural heritage places have been identified within the 1km buffer of the Kabra

realignment. All of these have been previously identified as being on the ICHR&D. Importantly, all

of these are located in the northern portion of the realignment that was not sampled as part of the

Pandoin investigations.

In early 1979, Jeff Pratt, a Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs ranger based in

Rockhampton for a short time, recorded two areas (JF:A10 & JF:A14) that he described as quarries.

These were noted as being in close proximity to a newly proposed powerline. While it is somewhat

unclear, at least one of these quarries (JF:A14) seemed to cover an area of about 1,600m2 and

consisted of an outcrop of what he describes as black slate. Slate is generally poor quality for flaking

but numerous outcrops of basaltic and andesitic material are common throughout the general area.

The available grid reference for this quarry (presumably a centre point), places it around 40m to the

northeast of the Mainline alignment and as such likely to be directly impacted by any pipeline corridor

through this area.

The remaining two places (JF:D01 & JF:A15) are located some 600m and 700m to the southwest of

the Mainline centreline respectively and as such there would seem little chances of impact to them

from the ABP as currently proposed. Further details regarding all of these places are provided in

Attachment 1.

3. HISTORIC (NON-INDIGENOUS) HERITAGE

3.1 Legislative Background

While at the Commonwealth level the EPBC Act also applies, the principal piece of legislation in

Queensland for the consideration of historic heritage is the Queensland Heritage Act 1992 (QH Act).

This legislation protects all those places included on the Queensland Heritage Register (QHR), being

those places that have met the criteria specified in the Act for listing. The QH Act also protects

archaeological places where there is an expectation of sub-surface material that can provide

information regarding the history of Queensland.

3.2 Preliminary Constraints Analysis

A formal search was also undertaken for any places that may be included on the QHR that may be

present within the vicinity of the ABP area. Of the 52 places listed within the full 5,000m buffer of

the pipeline centrelines, only 1 fell within the 1,000m buffer of the revised pipeline alignments (Figure

6). This is Raglan Homestead (QHR ID: 600389), the closest point of which is located some 160m to

the southwest of the Mainline (to Bruce Highway) alignment. As such it would not seem likely that

this place would be impacted.


21

Figure 6: Results of the QHR & CHIMS searches identifying those places located within 1,000m of the pipeline centrelines.


22

Separate to the QHR, DERM has also compiled a substantial range of information regarding historic

heritage places and incorporated this into its Cultural Heritage Information Management System

(CHIMS). At the moment this database is largely for information purposes as a summary of reported

places and is intended to be used as a source of heritage information to support both possible future

listings and to feed into Local Government Authority development control planning schemes. Entries

in CHIMS derive from a great variety of sources, but come principally from heritage reports. It has

not (at this stage although is proposed) been the subject of a systematic audit and as a result is an

incomplete record both of known places and the specific information about places that have been

entered.

An additional ten places were returned from the original 5,000m buffer search. Again, only one of

these was found to be located within 1,000m of any of the revised pipeline centrelines. This place

(CHIMS ID: 24435) is located on the western side of the Isaac River and to the south of Goonyella. It

is described as being a portion of the rim of a shepherd’s pot. At its closest, the Goonyella lateral

passes in excess of 850m to the south of this place. Again, it would seem unlikely that this place

would be impacted by the ABP.

As a general point, it should be noted that a number of places within CHIMS do not have any

locational attributes that allow for the kind of analysis that has been undertaken within this report.

Irrespective, CHIMS listings have no current statutory management requirements.

Places identified as being located within 1,000m of the pipeline centrelines along with all others

identified from the results of the QHR & CHIMS searches are depicted on Figure 6. Attachment 1

also contains further details of those places within the 1,000m buffer of the revised pipeline

alignments.

4. COMMONWEALTH HERITAGE LIST AND REGISTER SEARCHES

Searches were conducted of a range of other Commonwealth heritage lists and registers regarding

identified and inscribed places that may be located within the ABP search area. These searches

included the World Heritage List, the Commonwealth Heritage List, the National Heritage List and the

Register of the National Estate. Datasets made available through the Heritage Division of the

Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and

Communities (previously the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

(DEWHA)) were used in this analysis.

In all, 6 places were identified as being located within the ABP search area (i.e. a 5,000m buffer of the

revised Project alignments): one each from the World Heritage and National Heritage lists (in both


23

cases the Great Barrier Reef area); and 4 from the Register of the National Estate. Of these, only one

(the Great Barrier Reef Region as registered on the RNE – ID 8320) is located within 1,000m of the

currently conceived pipeline centrelines. At its closest, the most recent Mainline (from Bruce

Highway) alignment is at least 750m to the south of any portion of this area.

Places identified as being located within the 1,000m buffer of the revised pipeline centrelines are

depicted on Figure 7, with further details of all identified within the extended 5,000m buffer available

in Attachment 1.

5. MANAGEMENT OF CULTURAL HERITAGE PLACES AND VALUES

5.1 Aboriginal

Arrow will, through its CHMPs or ILUAs, be commissioning comprehensive cultural heritage

assessments of the entirety of the final pipeline alignment that constitutes the ABP. Its preferred

management strategy will be site avoidance using tactical realignment, with mitigation by relocation

an option of last resort. Arrow will also subsequently resource sub-surface investigations involving

test pitting and excavation where this is considered appropriate. Monitoring of surface disturbing

activities will be countenanced where results of the initial field assessments (including any test pitting

and excavations) indicate this is warranted.

5.2 Historic

Arrow will commission an assessment of the historic heritage of the entirety of the pipeline alignment.

Where any places containing historic heritage values which have the potential to meet the criteria for

listing under the QH Act are identified, the results of this will be discussed with the Heritage Branch,

DERM. Again, Arrow’s preferred management strategy will be based on site avoidance using tactical

realignment, with mitigation by relocation as an option of last resort. Any such management program

will be discussed with the Heritage Branch, DERM prior to the commencement of construction

activities associated with the ABP.


24

Figure 7: Results of the searches of the Commonwealth list and register searches identifying those places located within 1,000m of the pipeline centrelines.


25

References

Darumbal People with the assistance of Central Queensland Cultural Heritage Management. 2008.

Cultural Heritage Investigation, Assessment and Management Program of the proposed

Bouldercombe to Pandoin Powerline Project, Central Queensland. Report prepared for

Powerlink Queensland.

L'Oste-Brown, S., L. Godwin and C. Porter. 1998. Towards an Indigenous Social and Cultural

Landscape of the Bowen Basin. Bowen Basin Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Project. Cultural

Heritage Monograph Series, Volume 2. Queensland Department of Environment, Brisbane.


26


27

Attachment 1

Cultural Heritage Search Result Details

Queensland Indigenous Cultural Heritage Register & Database (State) - within 1km

Place ID Place Type Latitude Longitude Proximity Class

GH:A88 Stone Artefact/s -21.85799 147.96213 250-500m GH:F63 Stone Artefact/s -21.85317 148.15157 500-1000m GH:F63 Stone Artefact/s -21.85316 148.15167 500-1000m GH:F81 Stone Artefact/s / Well -21.48311 148.04853 500-1000m GH:F82 Resource Place -21.45532 148.03278 500-1000m GH:F92 Stone Artefact/s -21.64366 147.92133 100-250m GH:F93 Stone Artefact/s -21.64583 147.92161 0-100m GH:F95 Stone Artefact/s -21.64855 147.92093 250-500m GH:F96 Stone Artefact/s -21.64988 147.92057 250-500m GH:F97 Stone Artefact/s -21.65349 147.92059 500-1000m GH:G04 Stone Artefact/s -21.87059 147.93030 500-1000m GH:G04 Stone Artefact/s -21.86415 147.93595 500-1000m GH:G04 Stone Artefact/s -21.86665 147.93683 500-1000m GH:G80 Stone Artefact/s -21.84151 148.03669 500-1000m GH:G83 Stone Artefact/s -21.83039 148.08665 500-1000m GH:G84 Stone Artefact/s -21.83021 148.08717 500-1000m GH:G85 Stone Artefact/s -21.82478 148.09337 500-1000m GH:G86 Stone Artefact/s -21.81908 148.10237 250-500m GH:G87 Stone Artefact/s -21.81495 148.10741 250-500m GH:G87 Stone Artefact/s -21.81426 148.10733 250-500m GH:G87 Stone Artefact/s -21.81381 148.10728 250-500m GH:G87 Stone Artefact/s -21.81374 148.10723 100-250m GH:G87 Stone Artefact/s -21.81328 148.10722 100-250m GH:G87 Stone Artefact/s -21.81444 148.10716 250-500m GH:G87 Stone Artefact/s -21.81464 148.10700 250-500m GH:G87 Stone Artefact/s -21.81380 148.10694 100-250m GH:G87 Stone Artefact/s -21.81603 148.10605 250-500m GH:G87 Stone Artefact/s -21.81633 148.10578 250-500m GH:G87 Stone Artefact/s -21.81657 148.10507 250-500m GH:G88 Stone Artefact/s -21.82003 148.11685 0-100m GH:G91 Stone Artefact/s -21.84943 148.19394 500-1000m GH:G92 Stone Artefact/s -21.85513 148.20298 500-1000m GH:G93 Stone Artefact/s -21.86108 148.20958 250-500m GH:G94 Stone Artefact/s -21.86193 148.21142 250-500m GH:G95 Stone Artefact/s -21.88365 148.25156 250-500m GH:G96 Scarred Tree -21.93744 148.30899 0-100m GH:I52 Scarred Tree -21.98395 148.32476 250-500m GH:I53 Scarred Tree -21.98353 148.32511 250-500m GH:I58 Scarred Tree -21.98401 148.31685 500-1000m GH:I62 Scarred Tree -21.98942 148.31223 500-1000m GH:I63 Stone Artefact/s -21.98923 148.31359 500-1000m GH:I64 Stone Artefact/s -21.98879 148.31406 500-1000m GH:I65 Stone Artefact/s -21.98880 148.31507 250-500m GH:I66 Stone Artefact/s -21.98814 148.31201 500-1000m GH:I73 Scarred Tree -21.98035 148.32582 250-500m


28


GH:I74 Scarred Tree -21.97645 148.32752 500-1000m GH:I81 Scarred Tree -21.92899 148.34626 500-1000m GH:I82 Quarry -21.92897 148.34641 500-1000m GH:I89 Scarred Tree -21.99070 148.31600 250-500m GH:I91 Scarred Tree -21.99296 148.31799 0-100m GH:J08 Contact / Camp -21.84978 147.97563 100-250m GH:J57 Stone Artefact/s -21.87499 147.93308 0-100m GH:J58 Stone Artefact/s -21.87077 147.93137 500-1000m GH:K70 Stone Artefact/s -21.63686 147.91103 500-1000m GH:K71 Stone Artefact/s -21.63750 147.91168 500-1000m GH:K72 Stone Artefact/s -21.63796 147.91223 500-1000m GH:K73 Stone Artefact/s -21.65150 147.91022 500-1000m GH:K84 Scarred Tree -21.86910 147.93232 500-1000m GH:K96 Stone Artefact/s -21.64171 147.92233 250-500m GH:L04 Stone Artefact/s / Hearth -21.97574 148.31513 500-1000m GH:L71 Stone Artefact/s -22.00731 148.32354 250-500m GH:L72 Stone Artefact/s -22.00777 148.32309 250-500m GH:L72 Stone Artefact/s -22.00740 148.32349 250-500m GH:L72 Stone Artefact/s -22.00750 148.32345 250-500m GH:L73 Scarred Tree -22.00310 148.32728 250-500m GH:L74 Landscape Feature -22.00974 148.32093 500-1000m GH:L75 Stone Artefact/s -22.01068 148.32074 500-1000m GH:L76 Stone Artefact/s -22.01078 148.32076 500-1000m GH:L77 Stone Artefact/s -22.01101 148.32074 500-1000m GH:L78 Stone Artefact/s -22.01107 148.32074 500-1000m GH:L79 Stone Artefact/s -22.01118 148.32025 500-1000m GH:L79 Stone Artefact/s -22.01032 148.32051 500-1000m GH:L80 Landscape Feature -22.01070 148.32037 500-1000m GH:L81 Scarred Tree -22.01016 148.32030 500-1000m GH:L82 Scarred Tree / Landscape Feature -22.01212 148.31993 500-1000m GH:L83 Stone Artefact/s -22.01164 148.32093 500-1000m GH:L83 Stone Artefact/s -22.01157 148.32088 500-1000m GH:L84 Stone Artefact/s -22.01115 148.32081 500-1000m GH:L85 Stone Artefact/s -22.01177 148.32099 500-1000m GH:L85 Stone Artefact/s -22.01173 148.32072 500-1000m GH:L88 Stone Artefact/s -22.00738 148.31438 500-1000m GH:L89 Stone Artefact/s -22.00802 148.31495 500-1000m GH:L97 Stone Artefact/s -22.00820 148.31235 500-1000m GH:M45 Stone Artefact/s -22.00825 148.31287 500-1000m GH:M47 Scarred Tree -22.00406 148.31162 500-1000m GH:M49 Stone Artefact/s -22.01555 148.32617 500-1000m HF:D80 Stone Artefact/s -23.07920 149.83022 250-500m HF:D90 Stone Artefact/s / Excavation -23.02097 149.74437 250-500m HF:D90 Stone Artefact/s / Excavation -23.02041 149.74397 500-1000m HG:B00 Cultural Place -22.95309 149.58456 500-1000m HG:B01 Stone Artefact/s -22.95543 149.59021 500-1000m JF:A73 Stone Artefact/s -23.54141 150.53754 250-500m JF:A74 Stone Artefact/s -23.54152 150.54439 100-250m JF:B10 Stone Artefact/s -23.85500 151.09538 250-500m JF:C68 Scarred Tree -23.82950 151.15908 0-100m


29



JF:C71 Stone Artefact/s -23.83308 151.15417 0-100m JF:D51 Scarred Tree -23.85974 151.03463 0-100m JF:D53 Stone Artefact/s -23.85420 151.07578 100-250m

Woora Consulting Pty Ltd Cultural Heritage Results Database – within 5km

Place ID Place Type Cultural Material Recorded Mitigated Proximity Class

Wpt 114 Stone Artefact Scatter

(Low Density) 1 silcrete scraper Yes 50-1000m

n/a Stone Artefact Scatter

(Low Density) 3 scrapers (2 silcrete & 1 petrified

wood) & 4 flakes Unknown 1000-5000m


(Low Density) 1 silcrete scraper, 1 silcrete flake & 2 sandstone grindstones (1 a fragment)

Unknown 1000-5000m


(Low Density) 2 silcrete flakes, 1 silcrete scraper &

2 silcrete single platformed cores Unknown 1000-5000m

n/a Scarred Tree

Live but dying box, single scar measuring 165cm long & 10cm high.

The tree was noted as being about 10m high and having a girth of 20cm

Unknown 1000-5000m


(Low Density) 1 silcrete flake & 1 petrified wood

scraper Unknown 1000-5000m


(Low Density) 2 multi-platformed cores Unknown 1000-5000m


(Low Density) 1 fragment of a sandstone top

grindstone Unknown 1000-5000m

Kabra Realignment Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Places – within 1km


Pandoin 16 Isolated Stone Artefact/s Single silcrete flake Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 17 Isolated Stone Artefact/s Single mudstone flake Yes 250-500m Pandoin 18 Isolated Stone Artefact/s Single quartz flake Yes 250-500m Pandoin 19 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 3 flakes (2 silcrete & 1 chert) Yes 250-500m

Pandoin 20 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 1 silcrete blade & 1 multi-

platformed core Yes 500-750m

Pandoin 21 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 3 flakes, 1 chert adze & 3 cores Yes 500-750m Pandoin 22 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 10 flakes & 2 cores Yes 500-750m Pandoin 23 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 2 flakes (1 silcrete & 1 chert) Yes 500-750m

Pandoin 24 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 2 flakes (1 silcrete & 1 mudstone) & 1 single


Pandoin 25 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 1 silcrete flake & 1 single


Pandoin 26 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 4 flakes (2 chert, 1 basalt & 1

mudstone) Yes 500-750m

Pandoin 27 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 4 silcrete flakes & 1 single


Pandoin 28 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 2 silcrete flakes Yes 500-750m

Pandoin 29 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 10 flakes (9 silcrete & 1

mudstone) & 1 single platformed core

Yes 500-750m


30


Pandoin 30 Isolated Stone Artefact/s Single basalt flake Yes 500-750m

Pandoin 31 Isolated Stone Artefact/s Single silcrete flake Yes 500-750m Pandoin 32 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 4 flakes & 2 cores Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 33 Isolated Stone Artefact/s Single mudstone flake Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 34 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 2 flakes (1 silcrete & 1 chert) Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 35 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 1 silcrete multi-platformed core Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 36 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 4 flakes & 1 core Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 37 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 5 flakes & 1 core Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 38 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 2 silcrete flakes Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 39 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 1 silcrete multi-platformed core Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 40 Isolated Stone Artefact/s Single silcrete flake Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 41 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 3 silcrete flakes Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 42 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 1 multi-platformed core Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 43 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 5 silcrete flakes Yes 750-1000m

Pandoin 44 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 5 flakes including 2 silcrete

ones that had been used Yes 750-1000m

Pandoin 45 Isolated Stone Artefact/s Single silcrete flake Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 46 Isolated Stone Artefact/s Single silcrete flake Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 47 Isolated Stone Artefact/s Single silcrete flake Yes 750-1000m

Pandoin 48 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 1 silcrete flake & 1 single


Pandoin 49 Isolated Stone Artefact/s Single mudstone flake Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 50 Isolated Stone Artefact/s Single silcrete flake Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 51 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 1 flake 7 2 cores Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 53 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 2 silcrete flakes Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 54 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 2 silcrete flakes Yes 750-1000m Pandoin 55 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 2 basalt flakes Yes 750-1000m

Pandoin 77 Isolated Stone Artefact/s 6 silcrete flakes including 1 that

has been used Yes 500-750m

JF:A14 Tropic of Capricorn

Quarry Recorded by J. Pratt 1979.

Covered a 40m2 area. Unknown 0-100m

JF:A15 Malchi Creek Stone

Artefact/s & Possible Hearth

Originally Recorded by J. Pratt in 1979, rerecorded by M.

Morwood 1984 who does not identify a heath.

Unknown 500-750m

JF:D01 AMC Slurry Pipeline

Flaked Glass

A single example of flakes green bottle glass identified by Darumbal & CQCHM in 2001.

No 500-750m

Queensland Heritage Register (State) – within 1km

Place ID Place Name Area (m2)

Proximity Class

600389 Raglan Homestead 587492 100-250m

DERM Cultural Heritage Information & Management System (State) – within 1km

Place ID Place Name Latitude Longitude Proximity Class 24435 Portion of the rim of a shepherd’s pot -21.845720 147.960380 500-1000m


31

World Heritage List (Commonwealth) – within 5km

Place ID Place Name Listing Status Listing Value/s

Proximity Class

105060 Great Barrier Reef Declared Natural 1000-2500m

National Heritage List (Commonwealth) – within 5km


Proximity Class

105 Great Barrier Reef Listed Natural 1000-2500m

Register of the National Estate (Commonwealth) – within 5km


Proximity Class

8320 Great Barrier Reef Region Registered Natural 500-1000m 8829 Gracemere Homestead Registered Historic 2500-5000m

14674 Mount Larcom Range Indicative Place Natural 2500-5000m 102290 Capricornia Serpentinite Landscape Indicative Place Natural 1000-2500m

Arrow Bowen Pipeline Project - Appendix 4 - Cultural Heritage Report€¦ · Arrow Bowen Pipeline...

Documents

Transcript of Arrow Bowen Pipeline Project - Appendix 4 - Cultural Heritage Report€¦ · Arrow Bowen Pipeline...